Re: [HACKERS] Allow pg_dumpall to work without pg_authid

ok. I can understand. Regards, Sachin On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Greetings, > > * Sachin Kotwal (kotsac...@gmail.com) wrote: > > Can we have backpatch this patch to PostgreSQL 9.6 and earlier releases ? > > No. This is a new feature and new

Re: [HACKERS] Allow pg_dumpall to work without pg_authid

> Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ > PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > -- Thanks and Regards, Sachin Kotwal

Re: [HACKERS] Why postgres take RowExclusiveLock on all partition

locking in partition scenario, then it is fine. We can consider this is limitation of PostgreSQL or any other RDBMS system. Regards, Sachin On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Sachin Kotwal writes: > > Does it release locks after taking decision and then perform actual

Re: [HACKERS] Why postgres take RowExclusiveLock on all partition

be happy we will be able to reduce locking in above scenario. Regards, Sachin On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Sachin Kotwal writes: > > In another Terminal : > > > postgres=# select locktype, database::regclass , > > relation::regclass,virtualtransact

Re: [HACKERS] Why postgres take RowExclusiveLock on all partition

ep 16, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Ashutosh Bapat < ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Sachin Kotwal > wrote: > > Hi Hackers, > > > > > > I checked if there is update transaction on master table involved in > > partition

[HACKERS] Why postgres take RowExclusiveLock on all partition

resides? Feel free to ask if any further information is required . -- Thanks and Regards, Sachin Kotwal

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench unable to scale beyond 100 concurrent connections

ers \ / | pg_fdw(conn=100, diff pg instance on diff machine) | Hope i will test this scenario in detail once i get time and good hardware. If some one test this scenario please let me know. Thanks and regards, Sachin Kotwal On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Craig Ringer wr

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench unable to scale beyond 100 concurrent connections

Hi, On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 29 June 2016 at 18:47, Sachin Kotwal wrote: > > >> I am testing pgbench with more than 100 connections. >> also set max_connection in postgresql.conf more than 100. >> >> Initially pgbench tries

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench unable to scale beyond 100 concurrent connections

x_connection = 200 in postgresql.conf >> and pgbench witn -c 180/190/200 >> > > Please reply. >> > > Please send precise information instead of expecting people to guess... > > -- > Fabien > -- Thanks and Regards, Sachin Kotwal

[HACKERS] pgbench unable to scale beyond 100 concurrent connections

tested it with max_connection = 200 in postgresql.conf and pgbench witn -c 180/190/200 Please reply. -- Thanks and Regards, Sachin Kotwal

Re: [HACKERS] Template for commit messages

to be any more accurate? > > Sincerely, > > JD > > >> > > -- > Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/ > +1-503-667-4564 > PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development. > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > -- Thanks and Regards, Sachin Kotwal

Re: [HACKERS] WAL replay bugs

ks and Regards, Sachin Kotwal NTT-DATA-OSS Center (Pune) -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/WAL-replay-bugs-tp5799053p5799512.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-h